skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Well, no, here's what you said:

> the SEC is a rotating door between these same firms, so have no reason to intervene.

The SEC can intervene, and does intervene. I don't know why you're talking about jail. The SEC doesn't throw people in jail. It doesn't even have the ability to file criminal charges by itself; prosecutors like the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York do that. And they have.

Besides, I don't think this situation is similar to the financial crisis for several reasons. Not the same actors, not the same markets, not the same securities...
I know, I’m just saying that this is the common meme statement about Russia.
I still have my closing documents from our house and it's about an inch and a half of paperwork.
Fair Remote – one free job post each month on us
Retail is getting fleeced also.
?

Whats the difference between a government backed pension guarantee and a government pension?

I think your misunderstanding the purpose of the PGBC, particularly if you consider the state of things when it was founded.
In the context of WSB, "marks" would be a more accurate term to use than "subscribers".
> From a business point of view it's more like...

Usually companies use blogs as marketing tools to drive traffic to their websites. I might be wrong, but in the case of Coinbase I have never really seen anything they wrote that was precisely intended at selling a product. It's usually more informative, and shows they are trying to be more of a positive force in the industry compared to a dominant one. Kudos on them if it is the intent, and I guess it would explain the choice of platform instead of investing time and assets in developing their own.
Very cool project! Is it open sourced?
> I'm going to say practically no one reads these agreements, and even fewer understand them.

This might be true for the myriad of free online services and applications most people use on the daily.

But with anything I plan to spend or invest my money in/give my real personal information to I will most certainly take care to properly read and understand what I'm agreeing to there.

In that context, comparing your mortgage agreement with signing up for Facebook is apples to oranges. One of those is a very real very long-term financial liability directly and undeniably tied to your real identity with a legally binding contract, the other is a service that tries to monetize whatever data you give to them based on EULA and ToS that in many jurisdictions are not even legally enforceable.
Do you honestly think the majority of people who use Robinhood as a broker actually understand how short positions work and why they're driving the price higher?

It's clear price manipulation and it's exposing people to substantial risk they don't understand.
That is a very opinionated writing tool. It has no arrow keys. Does it support editing, or only writing?
I don't have a problem with this specific case, I'm thinking of, for example, users of 2 different apps having a war with each other and going in and leaving negative reviews for the other app.
Nobody said anything about shutting anything down.
Perhaps true, but conversely you could also argue that the sheer number of scams and frauds in the Cryptocurrency space that had medium blogs might also put people off!
WeBull and a few others had a temporary halt on buys due to their clearing house, but have since resolved and rescinded their limitations. Other brokerages have never stopped allowing buys and longs (but restricted shorts and some margin activity).
As someone with currently 3500 tabs open and regularly hits 6000, I can only say: Amateur!

(Kidding. I just never close anything until I get annoyed because I like to use them as active working memory for a period of about a month or longer.)
What platform are you on? SumatraPDF handles most ebook formats and is nice and zippy.
>I don't think having such impossible terms that you "agree" to are in good faith.

These are standard terms and you are borrowing money from them so logically they will have a lot of say in terms of that money. Credit cards will have interest rates, collateral loans will have liens on property, etc, etc. Nothing about this is impossible.

I do find it funny how the people who complain about this are also complaining about government oversight, robinhood stopping trades, etc. If you want full freedom then it's on you to pay attention to the details and not expect someone else to bail you out of your own ignorance.
When i closed on my house I insisted the package be sent to me days ahead so I could read it over. Made everyone unhappy that was necessary including me. But I was in a position to do that and I did. I think most good notaries go over a verbal summary of the documents at the time of signing - but it's obviously not binding if there is a misunderstanding.

Margin accounts someone could read over after the fact - but the length and lack of a critical summary on most agreements is ridiculous.
Please feel free to explain what's so naive about that.
By killing the revolution.

More money = more mining power, more trading power, ICO pumps and dumps that rose the overall crypto market volume, raising the hype and earned millions in the process for the early buyers/minters. The game was never equal.

Want to buy BTC? Get your ID ready, or do a local exchange which is quite inconvenient.

The revolution died as soon as you could a profit out of it.
Multiply $240 times the amount of coders and you'll see if setting up all that claptrap one time's worth it.
That connection is like 3 degrees of separation at best, though. Robinhood sells order flow to a number of market makers, one of which is Citadel Securities [1]. Citadel Securities is part of the Citadel group, which consists of a hedge fund (Citadel LLC) and a market making firm (Citadel Securities LLC) [2]. While both companies are owned by Ken Griffin and share many resources, they are split by a "Chinese Wall" [3] to prevent any conflict of interest between both sides of the firm. They also have different CEOs, management, employees, infrastructure, etc. as a result of this. Now, Citadel (the hedge fund) has invested $2 billion into Melvin Capital, which is one of the firms central to the whole issue [4]. Yet Melvin Capital has already closed its position in GME [5], which means that they no longer have a vested interest in the performance of GME.

There are several glaring problems with the theory that Citadel is pushing for Robinhood to ban buying GME for financial motives:

1. Robinhood has NO relationship with Citadel LLC

2. Everybody knows about the theoretical conflict of interest between Citadel/Citadel Securities so it is incredibly unlikely that Citadel Securities would risk doing anything to help Citadel in such a high profile scenario (i.e. the SEC/FINRA would be able to find out this kind of thing very quickly and very easily)

3. Citadel has no financial motive to stop trading of GME, because Melvin Capital has no financial motive to stop trading of GME

4. If it was as simple as trying to profit off of GME going down, why would they bother halting trades on other securities (AMC, BB, NOK, BBBY, etc.)?

This article does a really good job at explaining the situation (much better than I can do) [6]

[1] https://cdn.robinhood.com/assets/robinhood/legal/RHF%20SEC%2...

[2] https://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20170203/NEWS01/1702...

[3] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/chinesewall.asp

[4] https://www.wsj.com/articles/citadel-point72-to-invest-2-75-...

[5] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gamestop-melvin-idUSKBN29...

[6] https://finance.yahoo.com/video/heres-why-robinhood-restrict...
I contract for a lot of large enterprise, and I’ve written a lot of patches for open source projects in that capacity (to fix issues my large enterprise customers were having). My default position for this has always been that I’m going to get the benefit of fixing the problem regardless of whether my changes are merged. If the project maintainer chooses to merge my changes, then that’s even better, because that’s a tacit commitment from the project maintainer to maintain my changes into the future.
The Principle of Reflexive Design
I’d be interested to hear about tools that should be on this list but aren’t.
If price will reach 1,200$ in next three years I think the volume will be much lower
Maybe it's a good time to stop calling them investors and instead call them speculators.

They're not investing in anything, their money doesn't contribute to any form of progress.
The stoppage of buying was pretty bad, but this is just.. I want to say unbelievable but it's quite believable if you know why Robinhood exists and who it exists for.
Losing a lot of money very quickly is a hell of a motivator for action.
I mean, that's exactly what's been happening with Tesla for months.
No, “any other X not doing Y” indicates that the one being addressed is also an X not doing Y.

So, it reads like she thinks Cruz should resign becauss he tried to kill her in the past, but isn't currently trying that, while other GOP members are (or at least may be) still trying to do that.
Also when you know the app is not going to remove them, it's more likely to leave non-critical but still value able data in there. (someone's address, photos, a link that was shared with you etc)
Social Media Curation
>This delicate balance was at times destoyed by a single person that started attacking people aggresively for who they were rather than attacking the argument they made in a way that makes them understand.

I'm sorry I don't understand, are you arguing on behalf or against Discord who called the wsb crowd a bunch of white supremacist Nazis? I'm not being snarky, I genuinely can't tell if you're defending the open discussion about stock trading or the people that came in and called them names and got them shut down.

I am all for a discussion focused group having rules and expecting participants to adhere to them and booting them out if they don't. What I am opposed to is businesses that market themselves as places to freely discuss, wait til they have market control, then change their terms and kick people out based on tenuous accusations, in this case for the apparent reason of protecting hedge funds from the market. It is egregious what Discord did.
Ouch, that sounds terrible. I took a look at the calvax page and didn't see any clinic links. Sorry you have to go through that nonsense
If by "slyly" you mean without notifying their employers, this could backfire on them in small and big ways. In a small way, it would affect local/state taxes that are withheld. In a big way, employers--whether rightly or wrongly--want to know where the employee lives in order to set a cost-of-living salary. If the employer finds out you're taking a SF salary while living in Bend, there are likely to be consequences.
Ubuntu/Linux Mint. I like to customize the typography, the colors, the text width. SumatraPDF doesn't seem to be available on Ubuntu though.
Kinda....

1) I'd expect a credible brokerage to treat me like a human being. Call me up. Talk to me. Allow me to add money to my account if need be. Simply liquidating my position with no notice with an automated script isn't how I'd like my money to be treated.

2) This is among a rather large number of sketchy practices.

I have no horse in this game. My money's mostly in index funds and mutual funds, with maybe 1% actively managed. There's a certain way I expect solid financial institutions to behave with my future. There's a different way fly-by-night institutions behave. This very much sets of my fly-by-night detector....
I am wondering whether using AudioWorklets actually has any benefits in this case.

AFAIU the benefit in general is that they run in the audio thread so the data does not need to be handed over to a different thread for processing. In this case however, the data is handed over to the main thread anyway to be send over the data channel.

Has anyone measured the impact of using AudioWorklets this way?
I think a lot of retail traders didn't read the ToS but also with this situation the notice about automatic liquidating doesn't reference margin.
From what I recall, it's more like they said they aren't going to take public stands on divisive political issues, and they offered generous separation packages to anyone who had a problem with that. No one was discouraged against getting politically active on their own time, and no one was "removed".

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2020/10/08/60-emp...

As someone who has never lived in the bay area, it was kind of surreal to see employees expecting their company to get involved in amplifying their own personal political preferences. I've always been reasonably politically active, and had fairly liberal coworkers who, even if not politically active, at least believe similarly. I've always thought that work hours are for working though, and political activism has always seemed like more of an "after hours" activity.

It's nice when a company says they're in support of one thing or another, but it doesn't really mean anything without human boots on the ground willing to put in the work to make positive change happen. Corporate PR press releases always seemed really insincere anyway, so I don't get why people would be upset when some company decides that they're not going to do them.
> I'm seeing stories of people putting their modest life savings into GameStop stock. When the bubble invariably bursts, they will be left penniless. We will see people making actual, huge losses that they very much care about.

You're not wrong, but how is GME different that any other stock someone could have gone all-in on?

Nick Maggiulli posted this on a somewhat unrelated matter (some TikToker's strategy to fund their lifestyle):

> If it wasn’t obvious before, it bears repeating now—some people are going to beat you at investing. Some of them will be dumber than you. Some will be less knowledgable. Some will even be completely wrong about the future. But they will beat you just the same. There is no great arbiter of justice in the investment world. There is no cosmic force that ensures that only the knowledgable make money. If there were, then I would be a far richer man today.

> But what does exist in the investment world is the inevitable pull of fundamentals. The inescapable attraction between prices and reality. Like a moth drawn to a flame. Yes, markets will go through periods where some people make lots of money very quickly with little effort. We are seeing such a market today. But, eventually, these same markets find their way back. As the legendary Benjamin Graham once said:

>> In the short run, the market is a voting machine but in the long run, it is a weighing machine.

> So let them vote. Let them vote on which stock will be the next to double in a day. Let them vote on which non-profit will make them rich. Let them vote on what to buy and what to sell. Let them vote I say. Because gravity will eventually set in. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow. Maybe not next week or even next year. But eventually it will set in.

> So there is no point in making fun of other investors because they happen to be doing better than you, even if they are using a seemingly foolish strategy. If they are truly fools, they will learn their lesson. Maybe not in this market, but maybe in the next one.

* https://ofdollarsanddata.com/let-them-vote/
I've seen people say this is all part of a move by big finance to protect entrenched interests.

I'm cynical enough to entertain that possibility, but what really would be the leverage/pressure they could put on Robinhood to accede to this? Presumably these moves will hurt Robinhood with their users and possibly introduce legal liability.
What prevents it (or its users) from being regulated to death if the authorities wish to do so?

For instance how do you ensure that a token representing something in the real world will still represent it when the authorities start looking at it and decide to shut down the entities guaranteeing that you can reclaim an actual share in exchange of an ERC20 token?

Or to summarize: which problem does it solve?
I don't know where you got this-- I saw a lot of people who were investing not even for a profit but simply 'to be a part of a movement'. Yes I'm sure there are plenty of naive fools in the mix, it still is the stock market after all. But the complaint here isn't that a bunch of misinformed people thought they'd be millionaires-- it's that a bunch of people made a conscious decision to invest and now brokerages are manipulating the markets. Ironically some of them justify it as being BECAUSE 'retail investors don't know what they're doing'. There's a lot of condescension towards retail traders, which is weird when 12 years ago the 'smart' institutional investors and hedge funds managed to crash the global economy. Looking at the whole picture, I don't see why it's so ridiculous that people get a piece of the action when the majority are acknowledging they might not make any money at all on this
No, they shouldn't be expecting anything, but a lot of people will. And that's just how it is. If we don't want people to waste their time and potentially get upset, we should write out up-front what our contribution policy is.

Note that I'm not talking about how the world should be. I'm talking about how it is. I agree that people shouldn't just write up a PR without any prior communication with the maintainer and then expect it to get merged. But people do; that's just reality.
Exploring My .bashrc in 2021
More importantly it saved hedge funds like Melvin and Citadel form self-harm. They aggressively shorted these stocks into the ground, looking to make billions. If the prices stay up or keep going up, they stand to lose billions and even go out of business.

If you look at r/wallstreetbets, only a few people seem to have invested more than a couple of tens of thousands. The guy who came up with this idea to profit off of short squeeze seems to have invested only 53k. Most other people invested a few hundred or a few thousand. Also, people on r/wallstreetbets routinely show screenshots of their losses. It's kind of preposterous to move forward assuming these people don't know what they're doing, and Robinhood saved them...

These trading platforms are blatantly intervening to save the hedge funds, not the Reddit traders. Government may have a say in it, too, because they want market stability. And if these hedge have to sell their long positions to cover shorts, it could put a big dent in the market and even cause a larger scale crash.
I don't think they hold much on their balance sheet, otherwise they wouldn't have needed multiple rounds of financing through 2018.
Apparently the dividing line between pro- and anti-gun isn't left versus right, but pro- versus anti- state-monopoly-on-force. If you think it's a good thing for only cops and the military to have guns, you probably think that government (or at least this government) tends to be a pretty good deal. If you think it should be balanced by an armed populace, you probably think that it tends to be an oppressive force. Both perspectives are bipartisan.
You don't need to "know Java very well", adding that to a minimal clojure curriculum is a very misguided recommendation.

You can do loads of things without needing more knowledge from java than: a) it exists, b) it has stacktraces, that you will read on errors, and c) that you pack it in a .jar.

You can even easily do with less, as you can use e.g. heroku without knowing how to create a jar file, just pushing a repo, and you can start working with clojurescript and avoid java whatsoever.
A realised loss is not a risk though. A position where there is margin and could be an even bigger loss is a risk.
If your over-arching point is the legal system won't side with the RH users, I'm fine with that premise because I think "laws" are a meme, and the same powerful institutions screwing over the traders who went against them are the same ones who not only influence how laws are written but also enforced.

I thought you were saying in principle their was no basis for users to feel wronged by RH. But this is silly, because you and I both know without a shadow of a doubt that RH shut down buys to protect the underwater hedge funds. It's obvious to anyone with a brain. And I'm confident it's obvious to you. And would be obvious to any judge, jury or lawyer. But does it matter that its true? No. Is there some legal basis that would encompass "you can't shut down trading to protect some hedge fund that you are connected with". I'm certain there is, but it probably won't matter. Because "the law" and "rule of law" is a meme. Power is what matters. And the sovereign power decides what the law is... average joe traders don't have the power and hedge funds and finance in this case do.
I appreciate the feedback, dang. Please feel welcome to replace it with "[removed]" (I'm not able to.)
I’m pretty sure all of the GME bubble is driven by retail, and since most retails prevented new buy orders then yeah, it affected the price action. Remember, GME is small.
No, DeFi will simply migrate to L2 solutions as they become viable.
X Hours = xh$ with probability you misunderstood something

Compared to paying lawyer to explain it to you in let's say 1/10 of the time and better understanding

X/10h$ + lawyer fees

Compared to not reading and just trusting

No upfront cost, but probability of bad outcomes increases.

I think when buying a house that makes sense.

Buying 100$ worth stock? Not sure.
10k worth? Hmmm maybe
This tutorial is excellent, and skimming it was worth it to me just for the discovery of https://github.com/Phlya/adjustText!

Also, an unfortunate namespace wart is that there's a python package called ggpy that seems to have been abandoned since 2016: https://github.com/yhat/ggpy

"plotnine" being the de facto python equivalent of ggplot2 is not obvious at all, but I'll take it :)
Ask HN: Why are there so few American TTS accents?
Google Cloud, AWS, IBM all seem to offer a generic American English accent but with different voices. Given the huge variety of regional and ethnic accents/dialect in the US, why aren't there more options?

Looking for both technical and business insights.
It's a bubble. Bubbles pop. Robinhood's argument would be that they prevented harm to investors by preventing them from putting money into a bubble that was going to pop anyway. As soon as this hit the news you got all kinds of regular people wanting to get in on the action, not connected to WSB.
What you said was that they often use the word "observe" rather than "regulate," and that this is somehow reflective of the way they do their jobs. That's a purely semantic viewpoint and a ridiculous way to judge the efficacy of any regulator.

In actual fact, they use the term "enforcement action." Here's their report from 2020. See for yourself:

https://www.sec.gov/files/enforcement-annual-report-2020.pdf
But if everyone started correctly applying logical induction for every piece of reasoning, we'd all become mindless robotic automata, hardly better than giant abacuses, and art, hope and love would die.
> It's actually analogous to election influencing - same as if 9 out of 10 channels in TV only carried the views from one party and not the other(s).

Thanks to the Reagan administration, that's fine, yes? It would violate Twitter's free speech rights to force them to do otherwise?

This is an ancient argument and Twitter neither "banned a whole side of the political spectrum" (the asshole Trumpian wing is hardly all of conservatism) nor did anything new to US history.

The reason Trump is pushing for the "public square" aspect is because in a decentralized world, his crowd would still be pushed to the fringes because it's expressing fringe (but loud) views. 90 out of 100 forums would have issues with him. So instead, he wants to have access on his terms.